Scott Snider

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the new Official Plan for the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address procedural matters and a motion by the Town to bring unappealed portions of the Official Plan into force.

The appellants appealed a drainage report concerning the Hostine Drain East Branch under the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a full uncontested settlement, contingent on the appellants obtaining approval for a subsequent connection to the main drain.

After the approval was obtained, the Tribunal issued a consent order amending the drainage report in accordance with an addendum, directing the municipal clerk to give effect to the amended report, and allocating engineering costs.

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for four distinct appeals relating to proposed expansions of the Fergus Urban Centre boundary in the Township of Centre Wellington.

The parties agreed to a phased hearing approach, with Phase 1 addressing overarching population forecasts and land needs assessments, and Phase 2 addressing site-specific issues.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together for Phase 1 and granted party status to several requesting entities, including the appellants in each other's appeals, adjacent landowners, and the local school board.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled for Phase 1.

The City of Brampton brought a motion for directions seeking approval of modifications to its new Official Plan to resolve multiple appeals.

The Tribunal found that the proposed modifications and unmodified policies had regard for matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and the Region of Peel Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the modifications and unmodified policies without prejudice to the remaining outstanding appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to the school boards and conservation authority.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue discussions and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc. against the Township of Centre Wellington for failing to make decisions on applications to amend the Official Plans to expand the Fergus Settlement Area.

The Tribunal deferred party status requests from other landowners to a second CMC scheduled for March 16, 2026, to coordinate the hearing process for all related appeals.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order for appeals against the County of Simcoe's approval of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

Lorablue Developments Inc. requested an adjournment of its appeal, arguing it was site-specific and required ecological studies.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the appeal included broad policy issues that should be addressed at the scheduled hearing, though the parties could later agree to defer the issues if narrowed.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming hearing regarding Sifton Properties Limited's appeals.

The appeals relate to the City of Brantford's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision for a residential development at 277, 299, and 301 Hardy Road.

The order sets out the procedural dates, parties, participants, and the issues list for the three-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 4, 2026.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment and a development permit to convert a former convent into a private school.

A party requested a phased hearing to adjudicate the plan amendment before the development permit.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the issues and expert evidence were intricately linked, and ordered a single merit hearing.

A procedural order was issued to govern the proceedings.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding a proposed amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the refusal of a development permit for a private school gymnasium, a party requested a phased hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the issues and expert evidence were intricately linked and a single merit hearing would be more efficient.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Town proposed a revised hearing plan extending into 2027, which the Tribunal rejected due to its mandate for timely proceedings.

Instead, the Tribunal added ten hearing days in May 2026 and directed parties to advise if more time is needed for site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an unopposed request by one appellant to adjourn its appeals sine die to allow for seasonal fieldwork and testing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a proposed amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan and an appeal of a development permit refusal, the Tribunal granted Party status to a community protection corporation and Participant status to three individuals.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the issues list and hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3-storey mixed-use building with 42 residential units and ground-floor commercial space.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised development concept.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 390-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment subject to conditions.